Standards of Review: Question of fact or law?

The application of law to undisputed facts is subject to the appellate court’s de novo review.  For instance, if the parties stipulate to facts, which then become undisputed, the correct application of law to those facts is subject to independent review.  As a result, questions of fact can be transformed into questions of law when the facts are uncontroverted and only one deduction or deduction can reasonably be drawn from those facts.  (Fagerquist v. Western Sun Aviation, Inc. (1987) 191 Cal. App.3d 709, 719.)  In Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, the court explained the difference:

“Questions of fact concern the establishment of historical or physical facts; their resolution is reviewed under the substantial-evidence test. Questions of law relate to the selection of a rule; their resolution is reviewed independently. Mixed questions of law and fact concern the application of the rule to the facts and the consequent determination whether the rule is satisfied. If the pertinent inquiry requires application of experience with human affairs, the question is predominantly factual and its determination is reviewed under the substantial-evidence test. If, by contrast, the inquiry requires a critical consideration, in a factual context, of legal principles and their underlying values, the question is predominantly legal and its determination is reviewed independently.”

(Id. at p. 888.)

       Seems simple enough, huh?  You might think so but attorneys squabble quite bit over this distinction.   They even argue over whether certain facts are undisputed and to what extent.  Oh, if I had a nickel for every time an opposing attorney insisted the facts were “undisputed,” I might be rich (except for the 40% loss in value of my invested nickels due to the current economy).